Monday's Supreme Court ruling that congressional districts must be approximately equal in population drew a reaction from faculty members varying from outright approval to cautious skepticism.

Robert G. McCloskey, professor of Government, said he leaned toward the viewpoint of Justice John M. Harlan who wrote the major dissenting opinion in the case. "I doubt," McCloskey said, "that you can make a very powerful historical case for the Court's decision."

Don K. Price, Jr., professor of Government, agreed with McCloskey. He said that he thought Congress should be set up with equal representation whenever this was practical. He doubted, however, that the Court had jurisdiction over the case.

Disagreeing with the other two professors was Arthur E. Sutherland, Bussey Professor of Law, who said he was "pleased and not at all surprised at the decision." The House of Representatives, he maintained, was originally based on the principle of equal representation. "I favor the Court's decision," he said, "because it moves us one step closer to the realization of this principle."

Favor Democrats?

Price predicted that the Court's ruling will favor the Democratic party. It will take representation away from the Republican rural areas which are over-represented and give it to the predominately Democratic urban areas, he said.

McCloskey pointed out, however, that the Republican party would make gaint in the suburbs, also under-represented, but predominately Republican. "We can only guess," he said, "but probably the best guess is that the changes will cancel each other out and the political balance will remain the same."

The professors agreed that the decision will probably not have any great influence on this year's congressional elections. Each felt that most of the states will not have time to redistrict before November. "These things do not move at lightning-like speeds," Sutherland said.